I recently reviewed the book A Baptist Reflection of The Bible & Women in Ministry and Leadership. About the same time, I had a Facebook acquaintance argue that the plain reading of Romans 16:7 is that Junia (and Andronicus) were apostles.[i] This friend did not make much of a defense of his position, simply restating several times that “of note among the apostles” meant they were apostles.[ii]
Romans 16:7 (Greek and English).
- 1894 TR: ἀσπάσασθε Ἀνδρόνικον καὶ Ἰουνίαν τοὺς συγγενεῖς μου καὶ συναιχμαλώτους μου οἵτινές εἰσιν ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις οἳ καὶ πρὸ ἐμοῦ γεγόνασιν ἐν Χριστῷ
- UBS: ἀσπάσασθε Ἀνδρόνικον καὶ Ἰουνιᾶν τοὺς συγγενεῖς μου καὶ συναιχμαλώτους μου, οἵτινές εἰσιν ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, οἳ καὶ πρὸ ἐμοῦ γέγοναν ἐν Χριστῷ.
- KJV: Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
- RSV: Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners; they are men of note among the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.
The issue in Greek (TR vs. CT) is Ἰουνίαν (accusative, singular, feminine) vs. Ἰουνιᾶν (accusative, singular, masculine).
Paul is addressing [You (all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints)] directing them (among all the other greetings) to salute Andronicus and Junia. He describes these two as “my kinsmen” (apparently related in the flesh), “my fellowprisoners” (having suffered persecution for the faith),[iii] “of note among the apostles” (two who are notable to the apostles), and “in Christ before me” (having been in the faith longer than Paul).[iv] The relative clause describes two people, Andronicus and Junia. Who are they and what are they? They are “of note.” Of note where? Of note “among the apostles.” Neither this sentence nor this clause means that Andronicus and Junia are apostles.
Neither the grammar nor the definitions of the words prove that Junia was an apostle. A plain reading of the Bible shows that Paul did not write, “Andronicus and Junia are notable apostles.” Instead, he was inspired to write that they “are of note among the apostles.” The expression is not the one which would have been used if they had been apostles. What the expression “of note among the apostles” means is that were well-known to the apostles. It is also worth considering that the word “apostles” is masculine plural (ἀποστόλοις, dative masculine, plural), grammar not fitting with Junia being part of the group.[v]
Brief information on the name.
In the Greek text, a difference of accent distinguishes between this person being a man or woman – Ἰουνίαν (accusative, singular, feminine, Junia) vs. Ἰουνιᾶν (accusative, singular, masculine, Junias).[vi] So, as we have it in the King James Bible, this is the name of a woman. The name itself is rare in Greek – the masculine form being even rarer than the feminine form.[vii] Some translations have (apparently) opted to remove the “difficulty” by changing Junia (feminine) to Junias (masculine).[viii]
Considering “of note” and “among.”
- Of note – (εἰσιν ἐπίσημοι) well-regarded, prominent, important, well-known, deserving distinction.
- Among (ἐν) – meaning can be situated in, surrounded by, with, a part of, in contact with
- Inclusive use – “among” means a part of the body of the apostles
- Exclusive use – “among” is comparative to but not included in the body of the apostles
An example of exclusive use is found in Euripides’ Hippolytus (line 103), where the goddess Aphrodite is “prominent among mortals,” – although she is not a mortal. Exclusive use of “among” is not odd or unusual.
ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις (exclusive or inclusive)
- 2 Peter 2:1 among the people ἐν τῷ λαῷ (exclusive and inclusive)
- 1 Peter 2:12 among the Gentiles ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (exclusive, they vs. you)
- Acts 15:22 among the brethren ἐν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς (inclusive)
- Matthew 2:6 among the princes ἐν τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν (uncertain)
- Mark 5:3 among the tombs ἐν τοῖς μνήμασιν (exclusive)
Some history.
According to various sources, the early church writers thought Junia was a woman (as well as later writers).[ix] See, for example, Origen (ad Romanos), Ambrosiaster (ad Romanos), Jerome (Liber interpretationis hebraicorum nominum), Theodoret of Cyrrhus (ad Romanos), Theophylact of Ohrid (ad Romanos), Peter Abelard (ad Romanos), and Peter Lombard (ad Romanos).[x]
Final thoughts.
The debate about Junia/Junias and the apostleship is, in my opinion, a demonstration of just how far feminists are willing to stretch to Bible to make it say what they want it to say. There are some difficulties with this passage. It should be interpreted in the light of clear passages, and not made to walk on all fours. Our King James English translation can be trusted in both identifying Junia as a woman, and in not addressing her (or Andronicus) as an apostle.
[i] He
was only arguing about Junia because he wanted to prove there was a female
apostle. Whatever is true of Junia in this verse is also true of Andronicus.
Andronicus were probably husband and wife, or brother and sister. Paul
considered them kinsmen according to the flesh.
[ii]
In a past writing on the apostles, I included “Andronicus and Junia” in a list of other possible apostles – not because I think they were, but because I was listing all the possibilities that different students consider on the subject.
[iii] Philemon 1:23 There salute thee Epaphras, my fellowprisoner in Christ Jesus; (cf. Colossians 1:7; 4:10-12).
[iv] Early disciples, before Paul was converted. Likely they were converted elsewhere and then later moved to Rome.
[v] In the case of the masculine use for “kinsmen,” it would be used whether this was two men, or a man and a woman – that is, the plural form used to include both male and female persons is nevertheless grammatically masculine. That is in a different part of the structure of the sentence, though, from the use of “apostles.”
[vi] That is, in the Romans 16:7 passage, the name Junia is in the accusative case.
[vii] See Joseph A. Fitzmeyer, A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, New York, NY: Doubleday, 1993, pp. 737-738.
[viii] For example, see ASV, DRA, NASB1995, RSV, RV.
[ix] There is more involved in the appeal to the church fathers than some (on either side) have suggested. For example, the evidence of Origen comes from the Latin translation by Rufinus. The manuscripts of Rufinus are not consistent, where some give the name as Junias and some Junia. Epiphanius believed Junias was male and the bishop of Apameia (Index Discipulorum from Epiphanius of Salamis). I am not saying that the name is masculine; I think Junia was a woman. However, those who appeal to the church fathers need to admit that there is no universal agreement among the church fathers about this verse. One interpretation of Origen on the phrase in Romans 16:7 was that Andronicus and Junia might have been among the 70 disciples (Luke 10:1) sent out by Jesus, then at the least implying he thought this was a man. Commenting on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, Origen wrote, “When Mary the prophetess spoke, she was the leader of some women; for it is shameful for a woman to speak in church, and I do not permit a woman to teach, nor to have authority over a man. And also from other passages I will support this thesis, since the point has been made certain concerning the fact that a woman is not to be directing the man by means of discourse.” This tends to suggest that Origen thought Junias was a man, and those manuscripts are accurate representations of what he wrote.
[x] In many cases, it is not necessarily that they commented, but simply that they used the feminine form of the name in their writings/commentary. Of these, it appears that John Chrysostom thought Junia was both a woman an apostle (In epistulam ad Romanos). Some editor at Wikipedia (which loves to promote leftist liberalism) has misrepresented the writings of Bernadette Brooten to claim that all early patristics thought Junia was an apostle. According to the editor, Brooten “points to additional early Christian commentators, all of whom gave no indication of doubt that the epistle referred to Junia and that she was a woman and an apostle.” This is not correct. The accurate fact in the article is that Brooten points to Chrysostom believing Junia was a woman and an apostle. The most that can be derived from the other writers is that they took the name as feminine. B writes, “John Chrysostom was no alone in the ancient church in taking the name as feminine…In fact to the best of my knowledge, no commentator on the text until Aegidius of Rome (1245-1316) took the name to be masculine.” (“Junia … Outstanding among the Apostles” (Romans 16:7), Bernadette Brooten, Women Priests: A Catholic Commentary on the Vatican Declaration, Arlene and Leonard Swidler, editors. Paulist Press: Ramsey, NJ: 1977, p. 141).
[iii] Philemon 1:23 There salute thee Epaphras, my fellowprisoner in Christ Jesus; (cf. Colossians 1:7; 4:10-12).
[iv] Early disciples, before Paul was converted. Likely they were converted elsewhere and then later moved to Rome.
[v] In the case of the masculine use for “kinsmen,” it would be used whether this was two men, or a man and a woman – that is, the plural form used to include both male and female persons is nevertheless grammatically masculine. That is in a different part of the structure of the sentence, though, from the use of “apostles.”
[vi] That is, in the Romans 16:7 passage, the name Junia is in the accusative case.
[vii] See Joseph A. Fitzmeyer, A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, New York, NY: Doubleday, 1993, pp. 737-738.
[viii] For example, see ASV, DRA, NASB1995, RSV, RV.
[ix] There is more involved in the appeal to the church fathers than some (on either side) have suggested. For example, the evidence of Origen comes from the Latin translation by Rufinus. The manuscripts of Rufinus are not consistent, where some give the name as Junias and some Junia. Epiphanius believed Junias was male and the bishop of Apameia (Index Discipulorum from Epiphanius of Salamis). I am not saying that the name is masculine; I think Junia was a woman. However, those who appeal to the church fathers need to admit that there is no universal agreement among the church fathers about this verse. One interpretation of Origen on the phrase in Romans 16:7 was that Andronicus and Junia might have been among the 70 disciples (Luke 10:1) sent out by Jesus, then at the least implying he thought this was a man. Commenting on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, Origen wrote, “When Mary the prophetess spoke, she was the leader of some women; for it is shameful for a woman to speak in church, and I do not permit a woman to teach, nor to have authority over a man. And also from other passages I will support this thesis, since the point has been made certain concerning the fact that a woman is not to be directing the man by means of discourse.” This tends to suggest that Origen thought Junias was a man, and those manuscripts are accurate representations of what he wrote.
[x] In many cases, it is not necessarily that they commented, but simply that they used the feminine form of the name in their writings/commentary. Of these, it appears that John Chrysostom thought Junia was both a woman an apostle (In epistulam ad Romanos). Some editor at Wikipedia (which loves to promote leftist liberalism) has misrepresented the writings of Bernadette Brooten to claim that all early patristics thought Junia was an apostle. According to the editor, Brooten “points to additional early Christian commentators, all of whom gave no indication of doubt that the epistle referred to Junia and that she was a woman and an apostle.” This is not correct. The accurate fact in the article is that Brooten points to Chrysostom believing Junia was a woman and an apostle. The most that can be derived from the other writers is that they took the name as feminine. B writes, “John Chrysostom was no alone in the ancient church in taking the name as feminine…In fact to the best of my knowledge, no commentator on the text until Aegidius of Rome (1245-1316) took the name to be masculine.” (“Junia … Outstanding among the Apostles” (Romans 16:7), Bernadette Brooten, Women Priests: A Catholic Commentary on the Vatican Declaration, Arlene and Leonard Swidler, editors. Paulist Press: Ramsey, NJ: 1977, p. 141).
No comments:
Post a Comment